U.S. House Vote Narrowly Allows Rampant Abuses of Warrantless Spying Authority to Continue
cdt.org
(WASHINGTON) — Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a two-year extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA 702”), a controversial warrantless spying authority, and in an extremely narrow tie vote, rejected critical reforms to stop rampant abuse of the law that has been documented in recent years. FISA 702 warrantless […]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

  • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
    81·
    7 months ago

    From the article:

    FISA 702 warrantless surveillance purports to target only foreign subjects, but in practice sweeps in a huge amount of Americans’ communications. This allows intelligence agencies to exploit a backdoor search loophole: the FBI, CIA, and NSA conduct “U.S. person queries” of FISA 702 records to deliberately pull up Americans’ private messages, all without a warrant or any court approval. This loophole has led to systemic abuse, involving thousands of improper queries each year, including those directed at protesters, campaign donors, journalists, lawmakers, and — in one case — the online dating matches of an analyst.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      48·
      7 months ago

      OK. There are no laws against the NSA picking up.foreign communications. In fact, that’s the reason they exist. So they monitor a phone call originating from Moscow, say, of a person they find of interest. All of a sudden, that guy makes a call to someone in the US. Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it’s all about due to a lack of warrant? Also, the technology doesn’t make that immediately possible.

      The courts have decided that text messages, as well as mobile tracking, do not need lawful warrants. Usually you don’t apply for a warrant when you don’t need one.

      BTW, phone records are actually operating company business records. You don’t own them.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        7 months ago

        Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it’s all about due to a lack of warrant?

        Yes.

        There, that was easy.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          39·
          7 months ago

          First of all, it’s a computer take and no hangups can be done. Nobody is listening real time.

          Secondly, what you miss could kill you. But, I guess you know better.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
            51·
            7 months ago

            I’m sure as I type this there are men beating their wives and children, maybe to death.

            Should the government put cameras in every house to prevent this?

            If not, why do you hate women and children and want them to die?

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
              16·
              7 months ago

              What if they never wrote “bin Laden Determined to Strike US” because they didn’t know? Would you still think they were doing their jobs as you sipped your morning coffee atop the WTC?

              • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
                31·
                7 months ago

                The Patriot Act* didn’t exist before 9/11. Your argument is invalid.

                Also, the NSA can get the FBI to get a warrant for the person in the US. We already have mechanisms for monitoring communications in the US.

                * It’s actually called the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” I prefer the acronym U SAP AT RIOT/

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                7 months ago

                What if they never wrote “bin Laden Determined to Strike US” because they didn’t know?

                They got that information before section 702 was a thing. You’re supporting GWB’s wiretapping policy.

                • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                  14·
                  7 months ago

                  That’s actually not true, but I expect that you only posted so you could downvote further.

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    31·
                    7 months ago

                    The memo gwb ignored before 9/11 was before section 702 existed. 702 didn’t go into effect until 2008.

                    If you don’t want me to downvote you, don’t lie in support of a gwb policy.